i know it is a mute point now that the cubs inked scott hairston, but would the cubs have been forced to give the braves a draft pick if they signed michael bourn? i just read that any team in the top 10 of the draft does not have to give up a draft pick (cubs are #2). just would like some clarification? i like bourn and think he would have been a much better signing for 3 years, then hairston (another soriano type player) for 2 years.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.